Of course we all know that CNN is... 'unbiased' and thus their own motivations would never lead the to be less than thorough in examining the claimed backgrounds of the videos and the people who made them for their debate, but it seems like a lot of other folks are uncovering quite a bit about these folks within less than 24 hours.

If a similar debate were held and afterwards the 'undeclared' and 'unassociated' voters were found to be employed by the Heritage Foundation, members of Pro-Life groups, things of that nature, wouldn't you wonder about the screening?

Of course maybe they did screen and screened for exactly the type of questions they wanted. The other conclusion is that their own biases did not allow them to see the bias within the questioners themselves or to even ponder it or seek it out.

Of course we all know that CNN is... 'unbiased' and thus their own motivations would never lead the to be less than thorough in examining the claimed backgrounds of the videos and the people who made them for their debate, but it seems like a lot of other folks are uncovering quite a bit about these folks within less than 24 hours.

If a similar debate were held and afterwards the 'undeclared' and 'unassociated' voters were found to be employed by the Heritage Foundation, members of Pro-Life groups, things of that nature, wouldn't you wonder about the screening?

Of course maybe they did screen and screened for exactly the type of questions they wanted. The other conclusion is that their own biases did not allow them to see the bias within the questioners themselves or to even ponder it or seek it out.

Nick

What was more absurd was their response to the controversy:

Quote:

"The whole point of these ground-breaking CNN/YouTube debates is to focus on substantive questions of concern to real people and to throw open the process to a wider range of Americans all around the country. CNN cared about what you asked, not who you were. This was the case for both the Democratic and the Republican CNN/YouTube debates," CNN said in a statement issued late in the day.

That has got to be one of the most outrageous-ass responses, E-V-A-R.

And It was not the case for the Democratic debates. Not at all. Democratic questions highlighted democratic issues. Republicans got asked about the confederate flag and gays in the military. Nice.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Will you make America a 'sanctuary city' country?
Will you pledge to veto amnesty for illegal immigrants?
With immigration reform failing, will I have a job?
Lower college tuition rates - military families or illegals?
Do you believe in a conspiracy to make a new union?
What measures will you take to tackle the national debt?
What are the top three federal programs you would cut?
Do you support a 'Fair Tax'?
Will you pledge never to raise taxes?
Will you eliminate farm subsidies?
How will you keep lead-laced toys out of my home?
What is your opinion on gun control?
Do you believe in a required written exam for gun ownership?
How many guns do you own?
What will you do to reduce crime in the inner cities?
If abortion is illegal, what should the punishment be?
Would you sign a federal abortion ban?
On the Death Penalty, what would Jesus do?
Do you believe every word of The Holy Bible
How would you repair the image of America?
Is waterboarding torture?
Will you make a permanent commitment to the people of Iraq?
Is your campaign exploiting 9/11?
Should Vice-President Dick Cheney have so much power?
A gay Brigadier General asks a question
Do you accept the support of log cabin republicans?
Repay the $2 trillion borrowed from Social Security?
What is your vision for human space exploration?
Why don't many African-Americans vote Republican?
What does the "stars and bars" flag represent?
How can we repair the infrastructure of America?
Mr. Paul, are you going to run as an independent?
Yankees vs. Red Sox

Democratic Debate Questions

How are you going to be any different?
Will America be better off with Kucinich as president?
Are you a "liberal?"
Who would you pick as a Republican running mate?
Should African Americans be given reparations for slavery?
Did race play an issue in the response to Katrina?
How do you address being "black enough" or "woman enough"?
Do you support gay marriage?
Is it OK to cite religion as a reason to deny gay rights?
How do we get beyond empty promises for Darfur?
Iraq Pullout - "Are we watching the same *blanking* war?"
How many more soldiers need to die?
Are the troops dying in vain?
Should women register for the draft when they turn 18?
Would a woman president be taken seriously by an Arab state?
Would you meet diplomatically with these countries' leaders?
How long after Jan 21, 2009 will all troops be out of Iraq?
Who was your favorite teacher?
No Child Left Behind - scrap or revise?
Do you send your kids to a public or a private school?
Have you talked with your children about sex education?
Al Gore - "Does that hurt y'alls' feelings?"
How will your policies reduce energy consumption?
What is your stance on nuclear power?
Why don't we have standardized voting?
Would you agree to be paid the minimum wage?
Extend Social Security taxes to earnings over $97k?
America's Going Broke! What will you do?
Will my taxes rise if a Democrat takes office?
Tough questions on health care
Does your healthcare plan cover undocumented workers?
Have we had the same two families in charge for too long?
What does "In God We Trust" mean to you?
Would you treat non-religious Americans equally?
Gun Control - Are our "babies" safe?
What's to like and dislike about the candidate to your left?

It isn't when you think about it. CNN/YouTube advertised the questions as coming from impartial and undecided voters. In the Democratic debate they had Democratic operatives acting as uncommitted and independent voters and in the Republican debate they had Democratic operatives acting as uncommitted and independent voters.

It isn't when you think about it. CNN/YouTube advertised the questions as coming from impartial and undecided voters. In the Democratic debate they had Democratic operatives acting as uncommitted and independent voters and in the Republican debate they had Democratic operatives acting as uncommitted and independent voters.

So I see your point, they treated both debates the same.

Nick

I understand that you seem to think something's wrong, but please explain what, precisely, makes this a problem.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Perhaps you should watch the video of the question for example from the retired general. He is on the Clinton campaign and this was not disclosed. He asked a question clearly designed as a loaded question (likely why it isn't included in the video title.)

Then they have him in the audience and when asked if he had received an answer, he was allowed to rant for almost two minutes of the debate about how bad these candidates are for supporting Don't Ask, Don't Tell instead of merely answering the question asked of him.

Do you believe questioners and moderators of debates should be highly biased? Isn't the point of the debate to hear an answer to the question, not to let the questioner berate the debaters?

You are reversing the order here. What happened was the questions were found to be suspect and then when it was investigated why, when over 5000 questions were submitted, such terrible loaded questions got through, it was discovered the people asking them were associated with certain campaigns.

The question from the general was not meant to help the audience discover the positions of a candidate or the rationals behind them. It was loaded with a questionable presupposition, that anyone who supports don't ask, don't tell feels our troops are not professional.

So you investigate the loaded question and discover the person asking it is on the Clinton campaign.

Also look at the number of questions about the war in the Democratic debate and then look at the number in the Republican debate. I mean there is still a war going on right? The ONLY question about the war is a loaded question about that amounts to "How come Republicans hate gays?"

Do you think loaded questions should be part of a debate? Do you think a moderator should allow them?

You're right, Nick. Now that I look back through the questions, the GOP ones are terrible. All softballs except for the four questions about 9/11 and war-related things. The DOP ones are all policy-wonk questions designed to make them all look like pointy-headed nerds.

Where was the outcry against the questions? I was busy last night having a life and missed the debate.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Here let me correct that for you. I live where The Hills is MADE. You live where it is WATCHED. I live where there are zero White Castle restaurants. You live where it is a cultural reference and icon.

Which means when you attempt to use those to bash me, you really don't know how bad it makes YOU look.

They used to be my primary news source after I moved to Japan. Now that I can follow the Japanese broadcasts I do so (they have an interesting spread) and choose carefully on the net.

Watching the CNN anchors is getting ever more humorous. The international anchors are difficult to sit through, but they are nothing compared to the US-based anchors. It really is horrible.

One of the things that drives me crazy is their body language: none of them can sit up for more than a minute nor refrain from making frantic hand gestures and over-emphasizing things with their facial expressions. If they would stop leaning on the desk while talking it would at least look more professional.

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

Here let me correct that for you. I live where The Hills is MADE. You live where it is WATCHED. I live where there are zero White Castle restaurants. You live where it is a cultural reference and icon.

Which means when you attempt to use those to bash me, you really don't know how bad it makes YOU look.

Nick

Oh yeah? Well I live where Everwood used to be made!

Wait. Hang on.

I live where Footloose was made, and I used to live where it was set!

Wait.

I USED TO LIVE IN THE MISSISSIPPI BURNING TOWN!

Shit.

I just can't win at this.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

You're right, Nick. Now that I look back through the questions, the GOP ones are terrible. All softballs except for the four questions about 9/11 and war-related things. The DOP ones are all policy-wonk questions designed to make them all look like pointy-headed nerds.

Where was the outcry against the questions? I was busy last night having a life and missed the debate.

I think it would be nice in the future if they just took all the submitted questions, decided on them and then submitted them to BOTH debates.

We were looking for questions that would help Republican voters decide amongst the candidates, Mr. Klein said. We didnt particularly care who was asking the question, as long as it was strong and relevant to the race.

To that end, Mr. Klein acknowledged that the selected questions tended to tilt toward subjects generally considered to be of more import to Republican voters including abortion and gun control, while subjects like health care were minimized.

I look at the Democratic questions in the area of health care for example and find one.

Does your healthcare plan cover undocumented workers?

This couldn't have been asked at the Republican debate?

The number of loaded questions on the Republican side is just astounding though when you look at them and the presuppositions within them. Obviously what Republican wanted 'help' in determining among the candidates was who is the most racist, sexist, endorses torture, theocrats and enjoys having 'power' the most since that is what the questions assume of the candidates.

If we made a list of Republican priorities, do we even think the Log Cabin Republican endorsement would even be in the top 100 for example? Are Republicans screaming about how much 'power' VP Cheney supposedly has?

It is difficult, nigh impossible, for a "yes/no" question to be loaded. Anyone good at answering questions can easily turn that into a huge positive. (For instance, "That is an excellent question, because so many politicians today exploit such tragedies as a way to get elected. I, on the other hand, feel that this is disrespectful to the memories of the victims blah blah blah")

I'm sorry Grove but any check of sources will not verify what you claim with regard to loaded question. What makes them loaded is not being able to answer yes or not, but having a presupposition in the question.

It is possible to avoid the loaded question by not answering yes or no, and instead using a statement that fully explains, but we are not discussing the dexterity of Republicans with regard to avoiding such questions. Instead the exposing of the presuppositions is a means of exposing bias in the questioning and in the moderator and forum that vetted and allowed (more like desired) such questioning.

Also if the point of the question is to get information out so a voter can make a decision, responding to and avoiding MISinformation is not the same and is actually harmful.

Having a candidate make a statement that steps around and informs us how they are NOT exploiting 9/11 does not allow us to get to the bottom of whether they would support FISA, the Patriot Act, etc. It leaves us less informed and more cynical.

Instead the exposing of the presuppositions is a means of exposing bias in the questioning and in the moderator and forum that vetted and allowed (more like desired) such questioning.

What about that question is not valid? What good questions do not have presuppositions? And even more important, did the Democrat debate not feature questions with presuppositions?

Quote:

Also if the point of the question is to get information out so a voter can make a decision, responding to and avoiding MISinformation is not the same and is actually harmful.

Is it "MISinformation"? Republicans talk about 9/11 and terrorism constantly. To ask about it is perfectly rational.

There are hard questions in both lists (See: "Are the troops dying in vain?"), yet only the Republicans seem to be crying about it.

Quote:

Having a candidate make a statement that steps around and informs us how they are NOT exploiting 9/11 does not allow us to get to the bottom of whether they would support FISA, the Patriot Act, etc. It leaves us less informed and more cynical.

A question is not invalid simply because better ones exist. We can get a sense of the character of the nominee based on the question being discussed.

I love Keith Olbermann's take on this. To paraphrase: If you can't handle mere questions from Democrats, how are you going to handle Al Qaeda?

Not only do I think this bullshit about "planted" questions is absurd (perhaps the ever-so-slightest half-kernel of truth blown way, WAY out of proportion -- a great talent of the Right Wing Noise Machine), but even it were true to the depths Michelle Malkin's whining paranoia... so the f*ck what?

The real problem was the sorry, pathetic lot that is the Republican slate this time around. It was a problem of their bumbling incompetence when it comes to handling tough question, and of the inherent stupidity of many the positions they're trying to support. It's harder to answer a tough question when you real answer itself is stupid.

What...are you kidding me? Every promo, every account of what the debate would be mentioned how the questions were selected. The clear implication was that these were undecided voters, and if not that...at least not members of an opponents gay rights steering committee. Jesus.

Explain.

I think I just did. The questions, overall, were loaded and designed/selected to put Republicans in a tough spot. Nothing wrong with that, except the same simply does not happen for the Dem debates...especially on CNN.

And I say again: We had a political operative and at least a few declared Democratic supporters. They're not voting Republican anyway. It's a sham. Imagine if the roles were reversed...what would you say then? What if we found out that some of the Dem questions actually came from declared Romney supporters? What if we found out that a question such as "Won't nationalized health care hurt the economy, cost hundreds of billions, and reduce quality of care?" actually came from, say, Rush Limbaugh? Somehow I think you'd be throwing shit against the wall. And yes, I literally mean SHIT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShawnJ

Did CNN advertise that the questions would come from impartial and undecided voters or not?

Where did they say that?

Shawn, really. Would any reasonable person believe otherwise? You mean to tell me that you turn on the debate and think that "Hey...I think a lot of these people are actually plants for the opposition." Of course not. The assumption is it's a fair process. And it wasn't.

But let's go beyond that. CNN did this deliberately. Either that, or the people selecting the questions were so biased themselves that they naturally selected those questions. Either way it's bad. 5000 questions and of the 30 or so they used, you have that many that come up as operatives or declared opposition supporters?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

What about that question is not valid? What good questions do not have presuppositions? And even more important, did the Democrat debate not feature questions with presuppositions?.

The part of the question that is not valid is the part that pretends to ask a question but instead makes an accusation aka the presupposition, aka the definition of a loaded question.

As for the Democratic questions, no I don't see any that are loaded or making accusations. The closest one would probably be, "Have we had the same two families in charge for too long?"

The questions may draw a line in the sand and ask you to stand on either side of it, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Good Examples:
Extend Social Security taxes to earnings over $97k?
America's Going Broke! What will you do?
Will my taxes rise if a Democrat takes office?

Compare this with the nice bit of questioning in the Republican debate...

Is your campaign exploiting 9/11?
Should Vice-President Dick Cheney have so much power?
A gay Brigadier General asks a question..aka why do you believe the troops are not professional enough to serve with openly gay soldiers?

Those are three accusations in a row.

Quote:

Is it "MISinformation"? Republicans talk about 9/11 and terrorism constantly. To ask about it is perfectly rational.

There are hard questions in both lists (See: "Are the troops dying in vain?"), yet only the Republicans seem to be crying about it.

Nonsense. I'm sure the Republicans would have desired to answer that question instead of all the accusations.

Quote:

A question is not invalid simply because better ones exist. We can get a sense of the character of the nominee based on the question being discussed.

Agreed, but a question is invalid when it is an accusation posing as a question. That does nothing to help us get the sense of a character of a nominee. Also since the best means of defusing a loaded question is to avoid answering it directly, it allows the norm to become avoiding the question. It allows candidate ducking real questions to appear the same as those ducking loaded questions. That is a process that, again, contributes to cynicism and lack of information.

Let's have CNN fix it by scheduling two more debates where the Democrats answer the Republican questions and the Republicans answer the Democratic questions. I bet the viewership would be through the roof. I'd pay money for that!

I love Keith Olbermann's take on this. To paraphrase: If you can't handle mere questions from Democrats, how are you going to handle Al Qaeda?

Not only do I think this bullshit about "planted" questions is absurd (perhaps the ever-so-slightest half-kernel of truth blown way, WAY out of proportion -- a great talent of the Right Wing Noise Machine), but even it were true to the depths Michelle Malkin's whining paranoia... so the f*ck what?

The real problem was the sorry, pathetic lot that is the Republican slate this time around. It was a problem of their bumbling incompetence when it comes to handling tough question, and of the inherent stupidity of many the positions they're trying to support. It's harder to answer a tough question when you real answer itself is stupid.

Suck it up and grow a pair.

Peggy Noonan imagines how well this would go over if the roles were reversed.

I will never forget that breathtaking moment when, in the CNN/YouTube debate earlier this fall, the woman from Ohio held up a picture and said, "Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Edwards, this is a human fetus. Given a few more months, it will be a baby you could hold in your arms. You all say you're 'for the children.' I would ask you to look America in the eye and tell us how you can support laws to end this life. Thank you."

They were momentarily nonplussed, then awkwardly struggled to answer, to regain lost high ground. One of them, John Edwards I think, finally criticizing the woman for being "manipulative," using "hot images" and indulging in "the politics of personal destruction." The woman then stood in the audience for her follow up. "I beg your pardon, but the literal politics of personal destruction--of destroying a person--is what you stand for."

Oh, I wish I weren't about to say, "Wait, that didn't happen." For of course it did not. Who of our media masters would allow a question so piercing on such a painful and politically incorrect subject?

Her problem is that she still doesn't load the question. It should be more accusation to it.
Is your campaign exploiting the issue of infanticide for political gain?

They would be told to just suck it up and grow a pair if they objected to that question of course.

Why is "America's Going Broke! What will you do?" a "good" example? Does this not involve the pre-supposition that America is going broke?

You see that as a good question because you take it for granted that America is "going broke". It is a pretty dramatic assertion to be offered without evidence and with enough confidence to demand a plan to counteract it.

Quote:

As for the Democratic questions, no I don't see any that are loaded or making accusations.

Its equally good for both parties, although the Dems come out ahead as "Tax and Spend" is a heck of a lot brighter than "Tax Cuts and Spend" which is dumb as rocks.

Republicans no longer support fiscal responsibility. And Nick, what's this BS of "the Republicans" vs "we Republicans"? Did you or did you not vote for Bush? Did you or did you not vote Republican the last several elections?

"Oh, I'm a Libertarian" sure has gotten to be a popular saying the last couple years.

Is your campaign exploiting the issue of infanticide for political gain?[/B]

They would be told to just suck it up and grow a pair if they objected to that question of course.

Which "they" are you talking about? "They", the candidates themselves, or "they" as in they're supporters?

I have no problem with a candidate objecting to a question like that. A skillful candidate would skillfully object to that question. To handle a question like that skillfully, you need to spell out what you think is wrong with the question itself, and then state your views on the subject matter behind the question.

What I do have a problem with is the supporters on the sidelines whining about the questions because their sorry candidates couldn't field them better. It's hardly as if every single question was as loaded and your extreme made-up example.

The Republicans having more tough questions to handle than the Democrats is a perfectly fair reflection of the current political situation -- most Americans are angrier at Republicans than they are at Democrats, and Republican candidates have more responsibility for defending the mess Republicans have made over the past several years.